lfnfandomcom-20200216-history
Forum:Sujestas (Simon)
Teoria de verbos e completintes *"The ce may be left out, if the meaning is clear": Me pensa el es bela. - I think she is beautiful. Esce esta regula(bon!) inclui otra verbos? pe El dise el no veni, el insiste los acompania el etc **Me no gusta esta regula. Cuando on ia ajunta el? "Me pensa el es bela" sinifia "I think her to be beautiful", como "me trova la vino es bon", ma estas aspeta como eras! Me no gusta "el dise el no veni" car la (manca de) veni no es la resulta de la dise. Simil, me no gusta "el insiste los acompania el" per la razonas cual nos ia discute en la paje de Jorj: "insiste" es como "sujeste" e "invita". Simon **lo es en LFN grammar (English), noun clauses: cisa ajuntada oji par Jorj. Cual es clar es oce , perce no? **Lo no imita la linguas romanica. Vera, engles es la sola lingua cual me conose cual permete omete la sujunta "ce". Simon **pardona, ma me ia pensa ce tu (simon) ia introdui esta idea en la pasada, e ia nomida lo "un cadena de verbos". (nos ia cambia "me lasa cade el" a "me lasa el cade" per aderi a esta idea.) orijinal, la "ce" ia es nesesada. la usa regulal de "ce" es plu bon, e me ia recambia esta partes de la gramatica en engles. ma donce nos nesesa dise "me lasa ce el cade" e "el gusta ce se ovos es fritada". Jorj **Me comprende ce estas es cadenas, ma pos nos discute de completintes, me pensa ce los es bon sola como completintes. En "me trova el es bon", "es bon" opera bon como un completinte. Ma en "el insiste los acompania el", "acompania el" no opera bon, car "insiste" no aseta un completinte. Per clari: on no pote dise "el insiste los ce los acompania el"; "insiste" es transitiva, no ditransitiva. (Si tu preferi permete ce "insiste", "sujeste", "proibi", etc pote aseta completintes, donce esta frases deveni bon. Ma me no ia pensa ce esta ia es la conclui de nos discute.) Simon **Completintes es semprem formulas de nom. Suproposas con "ce" es formulas de nom (o, a la min, los opera como los). En me teoria grande :-) verbos infinitiva formi suproposas infinitiva, e suproposas infinitiva es formulas de nom. (Tu recorda la discute de "dansa la valsa es bon", etc.) Simon **tu ia perde me. **Pardona. Lasa me atenta nova. Simon ---- *Verbos difere par la cuantia de argumentos cual los aseta. Si nos esclui la argumentos introduida par un preposada (car estas es vera averbos, e no argumentos), nos ave tre argumentos posable: sujeto, ojeto, e completinte. La sujeto e la ojeto es sempre formulas de nom, e nos ia acorda ce la completinte ta es sempre un formula de nom, donce la sistem es bela regulal. (Vera, un spesie cuatro de argumento esiste: la completinte ajetival, sempre de un verbo nontransitiva, como "rica" en "tu deveni rica" - ma lo no pertine a esta discute. On pote an regarda lo como un averbo.) *"Trova" nesesa un sujeto e un ojeto, e pote aseta ance un completinte: **me trova la vino **me trova esta vino un bon bevi **me trova esta vino es bon ***si on pote dise "me trova ce esta vino es bon", per ce nos nesesa sujeste ce "trova" pote aseta un completinte? "trova" pote es un verbo "simple" (sin completinte). ***Me no oposa esta. Me gusta la regula cual tu ia pone en la gramatica engles, ce completintes de ojetos indica sempre la resultas de aplica la verbo a la ojeto. No es clar si "un bon bevi" en "trova esta vino un bon bevi" es un resulta. Serta lo es la opina cual resulta, ma la vino se mesma no cambia. Donce "trova" es a la limita de la tereno de la verbos cual permete completintes. Simon *"Lasa" nesesa un sujeto e un ojeto, e pote aseta ance un completinte: **me lasa la libro **me lasa la libro un testo nonlejeda **me lasa la libro cade ***el pare ce "lasa" es un bon aspirante per un verbo "spesial" (con completinte). o nos pote xerca per un parola per "drop"! ma vera, "cade" es "drop" cuando el ave un ojeto! ***Si, "cade" es usable con un ojeto. Ma considera "lasa me vade" - tu preferi "permete ce me vade"? Me acorda, probable. Simon ***e per ce on no pote dise "lasa ce me vade"? sola car "lasa" es costumal usada con un completente en la linguas romanica? franca, me gusta "lasa ce me vade"! e "lasa ce me atenta nova!" posable, esta forma pote es usada con otra verbos, ance. ***Natural, on pote dise "lasa ce me vade". Me ia pensa ce nos ia acorda ja ce la formas con "ce" es bon. Me ia mensiona "lasa me vade" sola car tu ia sujeste ce "lasa" es "spesial", ma a pos tu ia dise ce "lasa ... cade" no es nesesada - car on pote usa simple "cade" con un ojeto. "Lasa ... vade" ia es un esemplo do la truco de ajunta simple un ojeto no opera. Simon *"Vide" nesesa un sujeto; lo pote aseta ance un ojeto, e ance un completinte: **me vide **me vide la can **me vide ce la can rode la oso **me vide la can rode la oso **me vide la can un besta feros (?) ***ancora, si nos pote usa un suproposa, per ce complica "vide" con completintes? ***Me acorda. (Me ia pensa ce un de la concluis de nos discute ia es ce nos desira reteni frases como "me vide la enfantes jua", e la strutur cual me ia descrive ta es la esplica de tal frases. Ma si nos no nesesa los, donce bon - a la baldon! Me pensa ce la forma sin completinte de "me vide la enfantes jua" es "me vide la enfantes juante". "Me vide ce la enfantes jua" es ance bon, natural, ma la asentua es diferente.) Simon ****me suposa ce, en "me vide la enfantes juante", tu intende "I see the playing children" e no "I see the children playing". *****Esce tu persepi un difere grande entre la du sinifias? En ambos, me vide la enfantes, e los jua. Simon *****en "I see the playing children", "playing" es un ajetivo. en "I see the children playing", "playing" es un nom verbal e un completinte. nos no usa la forma -nte en acel modo en lfn. *****En "I see the children playing", "playing" es un ajetivo verbal e un completinte. (Nos no usa ajetivos completinte en LFN.) Simon ******"playing" here is a gerund similar to the infinitive. "playing is fun" and "I like playing" are other examples. it is not just a matter of putting a participle behind the noun instead of in front of it. of course, this kind of gerund does not exist in lfn. ******This is interesting, because I haven't come across "playing" analysed as a gerund in this construction before. I don't disagree that it's a gerund in "playing is fun", and "I like playing". And it's also clearly a gerund in "I enjoyed his playing of the guitar" and "I enjoyed his playing the guitar" - the determiner "his" gives this away. In "I caught him playing the guitar" (where "his" is not possible), I would say that "playing" is a participle - the construction is like "I found the wine good" or "I found the wine dripping onto the floor". Similarly, I would say that "playing" is a participle in "I saw him playing the guitar". This "saw" example differs from the "caught" example in that you can rephrase it (with a slight shift of meaning) as "I saw that he was playing the guitar". But ultimately, this is just a way of analysing the sentence structure, and more than one way may well work! English speakers obviously don't think about gerunds and participles: they just copy familiar patterns. I'm sure you'll agree that in an auxiliary language like LFN, it's preferable to have a few simple rules that people can think about - because nobody's going to learn LFN by everyday immersion. At least not just yet :-) Simon *****An tal, a su tu redise esta frase como "me vide la enfantes ci jua"... e "la enfantes ci jua" es "la enfantes juante", no? Simon ******yes, and I am fine with that. *****La difere semantical entre "I see the playing children" e "I see the children playing" es estrema sutil. La difere entre "I find the good wine" e "I find the wine good" es plu grande: en la prima, la vino es ja bon, e me trova lo; en la varia du, me trova no la vino, ma la fato ce la vino es bon. Ma con la enfantes, en ambos varias los es ja juante, e me vide los. La varia du no sinifia "me vide la fato ce los jua", o "me vide ce los jua". Lo sinifia ce me vide los, e ce los jua a esta momente - simil a "I see the children as they play". On pote an dise ce la frase "I see the playing children" es mal en engles: per alga razona, on no pote pone "playing" ante la nom. Considera ance "the child playing in the street is my son", "my son is the child playing in the street", "I see the child playing in the street", do la longia de la formula ajetival nesesa ce on pone lo pos la nom. Simon ****ma nota ce nos no pote dise "me vide el juante" car pronomes no aseta ajetivos, e "me vide se juante" es diferente car esta asentua la ata e no la person. on nesesa dise "me vide la fio juante" o alga cosa simil. *****Tu es coreta. Simon ****ance, "juante" no pote aseta un ojeto cuando nos usa lo en esta modo, no? "me vide la enfantes juante futbal" no es coreta. nos debe dise "me vide la enfantes ci jua futbal", no? (o "me vide ce la enfantes jua futbal", con un sinifia diferente.) cuando es posable usa un ojeto con un partisipio? me preferi nunca, ma tu ia dona esemplos ce me no pote recorda. aida me? Jorj *****Me pensa ce "la enfantes juante futbal" es coreta (si on ajunta un determinante ante "futbal"). On pote sempre usa un ojeto pos un partisipio (ativa) - esta es un regula basal per construi frases. Esata como un infinitiva es un verbo (con se ojetos e averbos) cual opera como un nom en la frase cual conteni lo, donce ance un partisipio ativa es un verbo (con se ojetos e averbos) cual opera como un ajetivo en la frase cual conteni lo. Me recorda sola neblos nos discutes de ojetos pos partisipios - la discute en la arcivos conserna xef la infinitiva. ******oce. *"Desira" nesesa un sujeto e (normal) un ojeto, ma lo no pote aseta un completinte: **me desira la can **me desira ce la can rode la oso **Mal: me desira la can rode la oso *"Sujeste" nesesa un sujeto e un ojeto, ma lo no pote aseta un completinte: **me sujeste un bevi **me sujeste ce nos bevi la vino **Mal: me sujeste nos ce nos bevi la vino - cisa un proposa con "ce" pote nunca es un completinte? **Mal: me sujeste nos bevi la vino *"Insiste" nesesa sola un sujeto; lo pote aseta ance un ojeto, ma no un completinte: **me insiste **me insiste canta **me insiste ce tu canta **Mal: me insiste tu - mal sola car la sinifia de "insiste" no permete un person per la ojeto *Como tu indica en la gramatica, proposas con "ce" es "nomal", donce los opera como formulas de nom. *Me opina ce "dansa la valsa" en "me insiste dansa la valsa" e "me lasa tu dansa la valsa" e "dansa la valsa es bon" es ance un proposa nomal. Lo difere de otra proposas, car lo manca un sujeto: lo es un proposa infinitiva. An tal, lo es un proposa nomal, e on pote usa lo como un completinte - si la verbo permete un completinte entre se argumentos. **me comprende. me demanda a me si "lasa" (e "fa", e "nomi") no es un parola multe "spesial". ma me preferi dise, per esemplo, "me permite ce tu dansa la valsa", car "permite" no es "spesial". **Bon. Simon *On pote crea cadenas plu longa de verbos: "me pote permete tu vole lasa la libro cade". Ma vera esta no nesesa un regula spesial - lo es simple la estende natural de la presedente: **me pote permete tu vole lasa la libro cade - O es un proposa infinitiva ***O = permete tu vole lasa la libro cade - C es un proposa infinitiva ****C = vole lasa la libro cade - O es un proposa infinitiva *****O = lasa la libro cade - C es un proposa infinitiva *un esplica eselente! ma ancora, me ta gusta ce nos ta ave no "verbos spesial" - o a min sola poca. la esiste de completintes complica plu la aprende de la lingua. Jorj **Me acorda, e es felis ce tu acorda - clar, me ia malcomprende tu opina de esta tema! Simon *me nota ce nos ave "lasa entre" e "permete entre" en la disionario. estas es la mesma forma como "lasa cade" e debe es cambiada, no? **Ma "entra" es ja transitiva, no? "Lasa entra un person" no sinifia "entra un person". Asi es alga esemplos per considera, con traduis esperanto per interesa: ***me no comprende per ce on no debe dise "lasa ce un person entra...." ***"Lasa ce un person entra" es bon, ma "lasa un person entra" envolve un completinte, e nos no gusta completintes. Simon ** la libro cade / la libro falas / the book falls *** me fa cade la libro / mi fal''ig''as la libron / I drop the book ****me ta dise "me fa ce la libro cade" ****"Fa la libro cade" envolve un completinte. Simon ** tu entra la sala / vi eniras la ĉambron / you enter the room *** me fa entra tu en la sala (?) / mi enir''ig''as vin en la ĉambron / I admit you into the room ****me ta dise "me permite ce tu entra la sala" ****"Permete (no "permite"!) tu entra la sala" envolve un completinte. Simon ** tu vide el / vi vidas lin / you see him *** me fa vide el a tu / mi vid''ig''as lin al vi / I make you see him ****me ta dise "me fa ce tu vide el" ****"Fa tu vide el" envolve un completinte. Simon ** el comprende / li komprenas / he understands *** me fa comprende el / mi kompren''ig''as lin / I make him understand ****me ta dise "me fa ce el comprende el" ****"Me fa el comprende el" envolve un completinte. Simon *** me fa comprende la broma a el / mi kompren''ig''as la ŝercon al li / I make the joke understood to him ****me ta dise "me fa ce el comprende la broma" ****"Me fa el comprende la broma" involve un completinte. Simon *tu malcomprende me: me conose ce, sin "ce", la frases involve completintes. me ofre la frases en loca de tu frases. per esta discute, suposa ce la "ce" es ala. per esemplo: tu vole dise "me fa cade la libro"; en me mente "fa cade" no es un junta bon; me sujeste "me fa ce la libro cade." (ma me debe dise ce me gusta la frases sin "ce"!) **La frases con "ce" es eselente. Ma esta no es la tema de la discute. La tema es la completintes: sin "ce", esta frases ave completintes, e tu (e me) no gusta la completintes. Me no comprende per ce tu sujeste ancora los. Nota ce me no vole dise "me fa cade la libro" - me ia pone esta formas a supra sola car me no ia sabe la modo la plu bon per espresa esta frases - e me ia nesesa scrive alga forma! Pardona per la confusa nonintendeda. Me acorda ce "fa cade" no es un bon junta. Me pote abitua me a "fa ce ...". Simon *me gusta la idea de patric de usa "rende" per "fa deveni" o "causa deveni". **Si, ma lo no ta pote opera sin un completinte! Simon ***a, si. donce "me fa ce el deveni grande..." es plu bon. ma esta usa de "fa" es fea, me pensa. ***me per ce nos no pote dise "me rende ce el es grande"? ***Esta pare strana. La intende de "rende" ia es clari ce un completinte va veni en la frase (car "fa" no aseta un completinte): "El rende se sposo ... un rica." Con "ce", on no nesesa un completinte, e donce on pote usa ancora "fa": "El fa ce se sposo es/deveni rica." "Rende ce ..." dise la mesma cosa a du veses. Simon ---- Pare ce ambos de nos preferi la simplia de evita la completintes. Me teoria a supra ia es un esplica de como la completintes ta nesesa opera, si los ta esiste. Serta, "ce" es plu clar. Ma nos no pote omete la "ce" sin reveni a completintes. Simon *esta es la loca de nonacorda: me sujeste ce nos pote lasa ce la "ce" cade (si desirada) ma con la comprende ce el es nonvidable - como nos permite la frase "me vole vola" per un corti de "me vole ce me vola". me no es sposida con esta idea, ma me gusta la simplia. como tu ia dise, me es fatigada de "ce...ce...ce". :-) Jorj **Ma "me vole vola" no es vera un corti de "me vole ce me vola". La fato ce lo aspeta como esta, pos la omete de du parolas, es sola un coaveni! E asi on "omete" no sola "ce", ma ance "me". Ma en "me vole tu dansa la valsa" e "me vole ce tu dansa la valsa", on omete sola "ce", e no "tu". Me opina ce "I want you to dance the waltz" es un construi nonclar, spesial cuando on no ave un parola o morfem corespondente a "to". Si lo pare clar, esta es car nos es abituada a lo en engles. (On pote dise la mesma sur "I think she is beautiful", con "that" ometeda - esta omete no es posable en la otra linguas cual me conose.) Simon ***of course I know that the "me" is dropped as well. that's because it is already at the front of the sentence and doesn't need to be repeated. and yes, "me vole tu dansa" isn't completely clear (what is, in any language?), but context clarifies. (this is really a problem of using pronouns as genitives without change.) also, just because a rule follows the english example doesn't make it a bad rule! :-) ***Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you didn't understand what you were talking about. But you seemed to be reasoning from a perceived analogy between two forms that aren't really analogous. I suppose you could argue that "me vole vola" is short for "me vole me vola", which in turn is short for "me vole ce me vola", in which case your reasoning stands up just fine. But I generally dislike saying that one construction is short for another, because it usually isn't. (Esperanto has several classic examples where grammatical pedants have painted themselves into a corner by insisting that one construction is short for another.) It's fair enough to say that "per presidente" is short for "per la presidente", because both have the same structure - one simply omits an optional word. But my analysis of infinitives and complements suggests that "me vole ce me vola" and "me vole vola" are two quite different constructions - and the same is true of "me vole tu enfantes dansa" and "me vole ce tu enfantes dansa". Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, and importing unnecessary baggage from other languages. Simon ****okay. you are saying that "me vole vola" is a good construction, and does not involve the kind of complement we've been talking about, yes? "vola" is simply the infinitive object of "vole". ****Spot on! "Me vole ce me vola" is also a good construction, of course. The complements only enter the scene when there's a separate object present. Simon **Un problem spesial con la pronomes es ce nos nesesa reserva "me vole tu dansa" per sinifia "I want your dance", cual no es la mesma cosa. Simon **Vera, la idea de verbos cadenida (con ojetos entre los) no opera sufisinte bon, o a la min no es sufisinte clar - lo gida a problemes nonfasil e fea. E esta no ta es controversa, car lo ia es ja nos conclui a supra, cuando me ia analise "vola" e "dansa" como completintes. Completintes es complicantes! Simon ***and that, of course, is why we have been looking for a way to get rid of them entirely! ***Absolutely. And that, in turn, is why I don't like "me pensa el es bela", because it seems to me to involve a completinte. Simon **E sur "ce... ce... ce...", la problem con "ce" ia es ce lo ia ave tro sinifias, e donce lo no ia es clar. Ma aora, esta no es plu un problem. Me no trova ce la usa presente de "ce" es an poca iritante. Simon *aora: cual verbos es ancora "ditransitiva"? "nomi"? cual otras? **Me no sabe. Ta es plu bon si nos defini simple la spesie de verbo cual pote aseta un completinte, car la sinifias de verbos pote es liscos e metaforal. Me pensa ce tu ia fa ja esta, cuando tu ia parla en la gramatica sur "resultas" - como "la presidente" en "nos eleje tu la presidente". Ma vera, me ta preferi elimina ance esta completintes - "per (la) presidente" plase multe plu! Donce la demanda deveni: per la poca verbos nonfasil, como "nomi", como nos pote evita la usa de un completinte? Sola du solves es posable: preposadas e suproposas. No otra solve vade! "Me nomi tu con (la nom) 'Jorj'"? Simon ***one more posable solution: replace verbs that require complements with ones that don't. or redefine them that way. that is, in part, what my idea of making "ce" optional: it makes certain complements and clauses look the same, so that the fact that they are no longer truly complements is less jarring. ****I take your earlier point about English rules not always being bad. But I think omitting "ce" seems jarring. It may work OK in simple sentences, but it becomes confusing with longer noun phrases and longer verb phrases. I feel the "ce" is needed to clearly signpost the clause, just as the determiners are needed to signpost the noun phrases. Making markers optional tends to just lead to confusion - it's difficult to notice the shocking ambiguity of what one is writing as one writes it! Simon *****okay, I think we can agree on that. it'll take a little getting-used-to in some cases, but I love the regularity. really, the fewer options a speaker has, the better (except for the poets, I'm afraid). *****Poets probably have the right to bend the rules. Simon ****Your idea of replacing verbs that require complements with ones that don't is worth considering - but how would it work? How can you replace a verb that requires three unmarked arguments with a verb that requires only two, without losing some of the meaning? As we've said, the only way is to mark one of the arguments with a preposition, or to expand two of them into a subordinate clause that becomes the verb's object. So why replace the verbs at all? Even "me nomi tu Jorj" can be turned into "me nomi tu per es Jorj" or even "me nomi ce tu es Jorj". The simplest rule is to ban completintes altogether, and force speakers to find ways round the few remaining problems. The perfect solution for any given verb may take some time to be found, but my gut feeling here is that there always will be a perfect solution waiting to be discovered! Simon *****yes, I like the idea of banning them. however, I would like to help our millions of future learnings (!) by finding a few simple solutions for common constructions, of course. ***sorry about the english. I have found it frustrating to talk about these issues in lfn. we seem to be talking around each other! Jorj ****No problem with English as a metalanguage! As you say, we were missing each other's points. I started off with my theory of how completintes must work, if they are to be allowed at all. You took me to be recommending completintes, but I didn't realize this at first - and the confusion mushroomed. Simon *you see: five minutes in english and we are in total agreement! I love english, don't you? :-) *ce tu pensa de esta: http://lfn.wikia.com/wiki/LFN_grammar_(English)#Transitive_and_intransitive_verbs ? **Multe bon e clar. Ma esce "con" es la solve la plu bon per "nomi"? On risca malcomprende ce "nos con Joana ia nomi el". Me pensa ce "como" ta es plu clar, an si ancora alga ambigua. O "par"? Simon **Posable la discute de transitivia de verbos e verbos cadenida en la lingua vorlin ta interesa tu: Simon ***http://www.vorlin.org/v2k6/chapter5.html ***http://www.vorlin.org/v2k6/chapter11.html *Do you think it is possible to use only the prepositions "a" and "como" for these former complements? I wonder if a choice of two would be better than one fixed prepostion, and certainly better than unlimited choice. "como" seems to work well for most, while "a" seems to work nicely for somewhat more "active" changes (as in "la sorsor cambia la om a un rana"). Jorj **A fixed preposition would be tantamount to admitting that we still have complements :-) The same goes for a choice of two, really. The best preposition in any given case will depend on a) the meaning of the verb, b) the meaning of the complement argument, and c) what other prepositions appear in the sentence. "A" tends to work well for resultatives, but it can fail if there's a more natural interpretation of "a" in a given sentence, or if the sentence already contains another use of "a" (e.g. recipient, or destination of movement). "Me eleje el como la presidente" is OK, but it could also mean "me, como la presidente, eleje el"; "per" avoids this. One of the best things about large bilingual dictionaries is that they give examples (and translations) of the typical structures in which a word occurs: perhaps we should attempt the same in the LFN disionario. Simon